The Scientific Americanhas an idea for addressing global warming (or, if you prefer, climate change; whatever): contraception and abortion, The goal: reduce the earth’s population and, therefore, the “carbon footprint” left by all those babies who are never permitted to get outside the womb alive.

David Bielo begins the article with a breathlessly delivered statistic and a hopeful prognostication:

An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.

There are so many ways this could be lampooned, the mind boggles.

First, there’s the whole climate change folderol, which in another decade will be the butt of endless jokes, except for Al Gore and his enviro-nuts who have drunk uncounted gallons of the kool-aid.

Second, there is the link between population and the so-called carbon footprint. On one hand, the advanced nations are already in population decline (a fact ignored by Bielo in The Scientific American), a decline so severe that it is nearing irreversibility in Russia, Italy, and the Netherlands. A panicked South Korea, where three out of every four pregnancies ends in abortion, has decided to begin enforcing a long-ignored ban on abortions because of its now-irreversible population implosion, a fate also facing Japan.

According to The Scientific American, this is all a very good thing and needs badly to be replicated in the United States and in those parts of Europe not already in precipitous population decline.

Finally, if one reads between the lines, it is not hard to find an anti-human, pro-anything-but-human ethic behind all this. Jeff Poor, commenting on The Scientific American article for the Media Research Center Network, notes that even more radical ideas are out there:

Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in 2007 called for the world’s population to drop below 1 billion, meaning roughly 5.7 billion people would have to go away.

Okay, that’s radical, I suppose. But it is any more radical than agitating for increasing the number of abortions, already in the tens of millions annually? Is it any more radical than agitating for entire nations to commit demographic suicide?

2 responses to “Kill Your Baby, Save A Tree”

We’re supposed to be humanists and believe in evolution, which teaches survival of the fittest, but then the know-it-all propagandists teach that we should be anti-human and collectively make ourselves unfit for survival?

And what happens to non-politically-correct, non-feminized groups, like the overly-ambitious and impatient Muslims? They get world domination handed to them on a recyclable platter. Where will all the Green religionists’ baby-killing for the sake of eco-responsibility really get them?

[Perhaps the Muslims are helping fund those ecological groups advocating cultural suicide? Undoubtedly, they can’t believe their good fortune.]